Mr. Speaker, when speaking about Bill C-47, we must remind ourselves to mention the current regime we have in Canada regarding arms trade control. Since 1947, when Canada adopted such a control regime, the minister has had the ability to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons. These reasons include that they are security threats, are involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanction by the United Nations. We have the ultimate control over the arms trade in Canada, and it is something we have always been proud of and will continue to be.

Canada can utilize a blanket ban on trade with at-risk countries through the use of the area control list. A blanket ban means that we use all the methods we have and all the tools to put tight control on arms and military equipment that can harm innocent civilians. Under the area control list, we have the Export and Import Permits Act. Through the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on this list. At the current time, for example, North Korea is on that list.

Again, our current protocol is very strong, probably the strongest the world has ever seen. On top of that, we already heavily restrict many specific items that may be of concern, including military and missile items and chemical or biological goods, just to name a few. Furthermore, Canada already tracks and records more than what is required under the Arms Trade Treaty. Our arms control system, as I said earlier, is very tight and very strong to be able to deliver beyond any threat that may occur anywhere those arms go, including any country, regime, or army, around the world.

We also know that the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on exports from Canada of every single item that may be work-in-progress items or finished goods. We have those protocols in place, and as I said earlier, we are very proud of what we have been able to do.

Collectively, we are left with a process that amounts to little more than a virtue-signalling campaign by the government. It is unfortunate that politics gets into the issue. When we speak about our concerns and when we point out our views on this topic, the first thing that comes from the government is that this is fearmongering by the Conservatives, which, first of all, is not fair. It is not true that we are doing this. We are pointing out facts and logical positions we have taken for years. We have studied what we have and have made comparisons between what we are trying to adopt now and what we had before.

If this process is a total waste of time, then we must say so. We must protest and make sure that Canadians know about it so that at least they can understand what we are discussing here.

Speaking of Canadians, we know they want a strong arms control treaty, but guess what? They have one. It has been in existence since 1947. If we were to ask anyone out there, they would say that Canada has the best arms control regime or protocol in the world already, so why not adapt our existing one rather having to adopt another bill, another treaty, or other controls coming from another party, whether it is the United Nations or others? We represent the finest example of putting controls on such an important thing in the international community. Canadians need that clarification. Our job here in the House, as representatives of our constituents and every Canadian, is to clarify that and to make sure that Canadians know what the government is willing to sign onto in order supposedly to move us forward, and that it not take a backward step, as was said by some witnesses and in some of the consultations we had on our own.

This bill fails to address the potential adverse effects on law-abiding firearms owners. That area was discussed heavily at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It is definitely an area the government has shied away from, even diminished, when it presented Bill C-47 in its current form.

Going back to Bill C-71, which is supposed to deal with those concerns, we know that when the Liberals introduced that bill, they confirmed that they were not concerned about the rights of hunters, farmers, and sports shooters. I recall at committee that we were trying to improve that area so that law-abiding Canadians would not fall victim to this whole process, but we were not able to achieve a result that would satisfy and take a fair stand when it comes to law-abiding Canadians, whether hunters, farmers, or sports shooters, who want to own firearms.

I have to mention that the former Conservative government requested that civilian firearms specifically be removed from the treaty in order to protect the interests of Canada's lawful firearms community. I recall Conservatives doing that. We did it in the House and at committee, and it fell on the deaf ears of the opposition at the time. It is unfortunate that we had to face that at the time. It is unfortunate that we have had to go through such difficulties. We are asking that it at least be fair. We are not asking for anything more than to be fair to hunters and farmers and, unfortunately, we have not obtained that.

The Liberals have decided to move forward with signing the ATT, with little or no consultation with lawful gun owners. They do not respect the legitimate trade in or use of hunting and sports firearms. Again, it bothers everyone out there, including we politicians, that despite the government's talk and advertizing of consultation, saying that it is now the government that Canadians have been waiting forever for to consult with and ask questions of, we have been left with very little or no consultation.

The irony is that the government always says that it hears people and has consulted, as if it is the only entity doing politics, or working with, or representing, or listening to people. We do listen to people. We receive letters, complaints, and phone calls, and we know that the government is not listening enough. While this is not surprising, it is definitely a continuation of a disappointing pattern of disrespect and disregard by the government.

In short, this bill is unnecessary. The first time I spoke on this bill at second reading, I said it was ineffective, unnecessary, and for sure a step backward. It will never be a step forward. It will basically diminish what we have done for years. Our record shows that we are leaders with our current regime, that we are world leaders in legislating the Arms Trade Treaty. Here we are in 2018, and supposedly we are doing things to make improvements, but this is a step backwards and it is unnecessary and not fair. As I have said, it is unnecessary, unfair, and ineffective.

Upon its implementation, we would be worse off than we are today. For all of the reasons I and many of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned, this bill would not serve Canada, Canadians, and the world as the government is claiming. We will not support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to serve with the member on committee now for a year and to travel with him, and I can say that he is a very good guy. However, the speech was a bit shaky. Let me remind him, because I know he is a new MP like me, and give him a little history lesson. In April 2013, the United Nations had a vote to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty, and 154 countries voted for it, and three countries voted against it. The three countries that voted against the treaty were North Korea, Iran, and Syria. One hundred and fifty-four countries voted for the treaty.

If Canada, under the previous government decided that it was aspirational, that it was good, that it was great to be part of the world community and to sign and adopt that treaty, then my question is simple. Was the government hypocritical then or is it hypocritical now, was it disingenuous then or is it disingenuous now? Could he give me a time frame for when the government was disingenuous and hypocritical? Was it then or now?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the history lesson. I know he has a good memory and a lot of information, and my memory is very good too. I enjoy travelling and working with him on committee, and by all means I call him a friend.

On the question, it is correct that 154 countries signed the treaty, but how many countries ratified it and how many countries will be ratifying it? On the history lesson, he knows well that the world's major makers and exporters of arms are probably not interested. They have not shown any signs of ratifying this treaty. What is the point? It is the signature. What are the stakes? This is not hypocrisy. This is talking about where we are now and where we are going.

We are now sitting on and already have the best legislation in the world. We should be very proud of what we have before we go looking to adopt something that is not really going to assure ourselves or the international community of anything. On that topic, I will leave it on that note.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the oversight of arms exports and strengthening our laws. From my understanding, the member recognizes that our job, as MPs, is to scrutinize the government's activities, including Canadian arms sales.

Why then did the member's party and the government vote against an NDP motion that would have ensured parliamentary oversight of Canadian arms exports?

Mr. Speaker, we will probably have to go back and talk about our current regime.

I think it is a very important reminder. We know that. As I said, since 1947, when we came up with our legislation, the minister, regardless of which government and which minister it was, has had the ability to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including threat, internal or external conflict, and to those under sanctions by the United Nations and those subject to our blanket ban.

How much review is needed? Why does it always have to be done here? There are major arms exporters in the world. They are already there. They refuse to even ratify this Arms Trade Treaty, and we are here complaining about one of the best, if not the best, pieces of legislation the world has ever seen.

I do not understand where this is coming from. I do not understand why we should be wasting our time on something that is already in place and almost perfect.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his comments on this bill, because he clearly knows a lot about it.

As I was listening to my colleague outline some of the things that our current regime includes, such as the trade controls bureau, the fact that heavily restricted items, such as military and security equipment, are already under good scrutiny by Stats Canada and the CBSA, as well as many other safeguards that my colleague pointed out, it was clear that Canada already has a very effective regime when it comes to the control of military goods and security equipment.

This is beginning to sound a little like what I remember years ago when the Liberal government, I believe under the environment minister Stéphane Dion, signed onto the Kyoto Accord. There was a big fanfare about our signing onto the Kyoto Accord. However, we know that under that agreement, nothing was accomplished in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

Is this just another photo op to make Canadians feel good, but when they really look at it, they will find that we have a better system in place now than we would under Bill C-47?

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think this is what we sometimes call virtue signalling by the government.

We have very tight control over this. We have the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada for the collection of all of the information over and above any deal we would sign. The most important aspect of this whole thing is, what are the other major traders in this area doing? Are they willing to ratify it or not?

This bill is already empty. There are no signals that they are going to ratify it. What is the point? Is it going to be a virtue signal or a photo op? Whatever it is, we know that it will be a total waste of time. Unfortunately, we have to take the time to discuss it in Parliament for hours and hours.

Now that we are talking history, let me remind the hon. member that 154 countries signed to adopt the treaty. As of January 2018, 94 countries have signed and ratified it. Five of the largest arms producers in the world have signed and ratified it: England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy.

When all of NATO has signed the treaty, the G7 has signed it, and the OECD has signed it, why is there debate over our signing it? You have not given one legitimate reason in your speech. You talked about the robustness of the system. You talked about how good the Canadian system is. If it were so good, why do we not sign and elevate the rest of the world to our standards?

Mr. Speaker, I think my good friend from Kitchener Centre's memory has failed him big time this time. He knows that the most prominent NATO members have not ratified it. This has to be corrected. We have to be able to call a spade a spade. Besides that, we have a standard. I was hoping that the United Nations would come to Canada and say that we have the most perfect legislation in the world, and ask to adopt it. I would rather have that. With all due respect to what my good friend on the other side said, for our government to agree to a piece of legislation that we know is a downgrade from what we have is not smart.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's argument is that Canada is already doing it and therefore we should not sign. However, the fact is that this creates international norms, norms that are accepted and shared across the world. That is the kind of thing where Canada can provide leadership. There is also a fund that allows other countries to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. If virtue signalling means that we are actually going to create norms around the world to stop the illicit trade in arms and stop women and girls from being raped at gunpoint in the Congo and other countries, then yes, that is exactly what we want to do.

I would ask the hon. member whether or not it is important that Canada be part of the world community in establishing these norms.

Mr. Speaker, when we do any signalling, we have to watch what we do. I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague. We serve together on the foreign affairs committee. I will tell her something. When I am listening to the Liberals, whether as a politician or as an average Canadian sitting at home watching TV, it starts to sound as if Canada has left the world stage. It sounds as if we are doing something wrong. I reject that tone every day, because we are, by all means, leaders when it comes to humanitarian efforts. We are leaders when it comes to the best practices of democracy and freedom in the world. When we have to adopt something that is less than what we have already, I do not think we are doing any good for the international community, or for humanity. We should always sound proud, rather than guilty and trying to apologize for everything in the world.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, Canada plays a strong leadership role worldwide. However, we should never take it for granted. What we are talking about today is a substantial piece of legislation that adds to the value of Canada being on the world stage, making a very strong statement.

This has nothing to do with gun registration. I know that many Conservatives want to focus the issue on gun registration. That is not going to happen under this government, perhaps under a future Conservative government, but not under this government. I wonder if the member would comment on why it is so important to demonstrate leadership. Conservatives can do that by voting in favour of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, but in the meantime, they are changing the label all the time. The Liberals put a new label on and call it a step forward, or something that we have to do. Now, we have a change of label.

This is not about the Arms Trade Treaty. It is not about how we trade arms around the world. It is just about giving a signal that Canada is part of the international community. Canada is a leader in the international community. No one can take Canada's place. We will remain the best example of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and no one can take that away from us. We are proud of the way we are and who we are.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

Our government entered office with a mandate to expand Canadian diplomacy and leadership on global issues. We are committed to promoting human rights and fostering peace. We are committed to ensuring that our foreign, defence, development, and trade policies can work hand in hand. It is with this in mind that I am so proud to be part of a government that is committed to an export control system that is transparent and that protects human rights at every stage of the assessment process.

Canada's export control regime is, by international standards, already one we should be very proud of. Canada promotes stringent transparency, and our export regime takes human rights into account during the assessment process. However, while I am proud of what has already been done to build Canada's export control system, I believe that to remain a global leader in human rights, we must continue to do better.

The changes we are proposing in Bill C-47 are about demonstrating Canada's commitment to human rights on the global stage so that we can hold our heads high, knowing that we continue to do our part as we align ourselves with our closest partners and allies in NATO and the G7. In other words, this is about returning Canada to the forefront of international peace and security efforts. As we make these changes, and as we build lasting policies that will advance Canada's engagement on the responsible trade of conventional arms, we need to take the care to ensure that we take an approach that works for Canada. We must build policies that work within the context of Canadian institutions and embark upon an approach to the implementation of the ATT that is practical, long-lasting, and bureaucratically feasible.

This is the first international treaty that explicitly acknowledges the social, economic, and humanitarian consequences of the illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms. I think it is important to remember that what lies at the heart of this treaty is not bureaucracy or the motivation of partisanship but rather our collective obligation to advance the human security agenda and the international community's collective agreement that we must stand together if we are to protect the rights of those who live in insecure areas and conflict zones.

There has been fearmongering where this treaty is concerned. A debate that should have been centred on the protection of some of the world's most vulnerable people has instead been haunted by hollow, baseless speculation as to how this treaty might interfere with the rights and practices of Canadian gun owners.

As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said:

This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom, in fact the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess and use arms for legitimate purposes.

Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans, the rights of American citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution.

This treaty reaffirms the sovereign right of each country to decide for itself, consistent with its own constitutional and legal requirements, how to deal with the conventional arms that are exclusively used within its borders.

If people are legitimate law-abiding gun-owners or users here in Canada, this treaty will not impact them. The United States signed the treaty, and given the centrality of gun ownership in the United States, I highly doubt that it would have done so had there been any domestic impact from this treaty.

For anyone who may have misread or misunderstood the Arms Trade Treaty upon first reading, let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that the preamble to the ATT both reaffirms the sovereign right of any state to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system, and recognizes the legitimate political, security, economic, and commercial interests of states in the international trade in conventional arms.

From day one, this government has believed in evidence-based policy. Not only does that govern our outward-facing policy, but it affects how we operate internally as well.

We do not have unlimited resources or personnel, and we have to use them very smartly and efficiently. NDP members think differently. They want to force officials to review permits any time new information comes to light that could affect the larger decision to grant a permit.

Our officials are experts in their jobs. They know better than any of us in this House what would constitute a meaningful enough change to trigger a review of either an export or brokering permit. We should allow them to focus their energies in areas where changes are significant and carry a real risk of impacting the eventual result. By pulling them off these important reviews to engage in less critical work, we are simply raising the possibility of not catching something in the high-risk cases that could have an extremely detrimental effect and impact on the ground. Legislation must be reasonable.

The minister has the power to review permits, and in fact, the minister has used that power. The Arms Trade Treaty encourages state parties to review permits when relevant information comes to light. When we have experts tell us that they have relevant information that mandates a review, rest assured that a review will be carried out.

At committee, we learned that export experts wanted us to place the Arms Trade Treaty criteria into legislation so that we could have clear guidelines on which the decision to issue export-import permits could be assessed. We did that.

These criteria are the following: a serious violation of international and humanitarian law; a serious violation of international human rights law; an act constituting an offence under international conventions or protocols relating to terrorism to which Canada is a party; an act constituting an offence under international conventions or protocols relating to transnational organized crime to which Canada is a party; serious acts of gender-based violence; or serious acts of violence against women and children. These are mandatory considerations. They must be taken into account before any decision is made.

This amendment is at the very heart of the Arms Trade Treaty as originally envisioned. It is a vital tool to help protect human rights all around the world. Of note is the language on gender-based violence, which goes beyond the requirements of the Arms Trade Treaty. I am particularly proud of this effort on our members' part in committee to ensure that our foreign policy and development agenda align.

What else came out of committee? We now have a “substantial risk” clause in the proposed legislation. What does that mean? It would bind all future governments to the higher standards we are setting out in this proposed legislation. This clause would prevent the government from allowing for export or brokering if there were a substantial risk that it would lead to any of the acts I have previously listed. Prior to this amendment, there was no prohibition on allowing for export or brokering under these circumstances. It simply had to be considered as a factor.

The Arms Trade Treaty is a powerful tool, and acceding to it is a meaningful statement of our values. It is a way we can keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and those who seek to do harm to Canada and its allies. The Arms Trade Treaty is a way we can reduce the risk that the trade of arms at the international level will be used to commit genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

As Canadians, we are blessed to live in a country where our strength is not measured only by our excellent defence forces or our resilient and growing economy. Our strength is measured by the people who inhabit this land who want to do good, not only in Canada but around the world. Our citizens demand that we engage with the world and that we continue to strive for peace and justice. That is the Canadian way, and that is the reason this government is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener, my neighbour. I appreciate his input here, and I enjoy working with him in the Waterloo region.

Earlier today when we were debating this, it was clear that there was a misunderstanding in terms of those major countries that have signed and ratified this document. I pointed out that the U.S. has not ratified it.

I want to give my colleague an opportunity to clarify that the U.S. and other major countries, major manufacturers and exporters of military and security equipment, have not ratified this particular treaty.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question. I too also enjoy working with him.

I am burdened by science. I am burdened by facts, and here are the facts.

The U.S. signed that treaty. The nuance in the American political system is that to ratify a treaty requires two-thirds of the vote in the Senate. That is why the majority of treaties are never ratified, but that does not mean that they do not follow the treaty. They do follow the treaty. The G7 countries follow the treaty. NATO follows the treaty. Our allies follow the treaty. The OECD follows the treaty.

What I have been hearing from the other side is about the strength and the robustness of the system. If it is strong and it is robust, why do we not share our best practices with the rest of the world? Why do we not accede to this treaty? Why do we not help those countries that also want to join collectively, in collective security around the world, with our best practices to sign this treaty?